I love this channel! I've always been interested in Early Modern history and the way you practically demonstrate these concepts is entertaining and educational. Keep it up! I hope you get more subscribers soon
The only thing found that addresses misfires in any way is the following from Simes's The Military Medley, p. 31: "Whatever man’s firelock shall miss fire twice, or be defective in any part of it, the man to whom it belongs, that neglects to report it to his Officer, will be sent to the drill for a month, and make good the duty he misses during that time."
The fife and drum tune at the end of the video has the same melody as “Ça ira!”, a song of from the time of the French Revolution. What is that tune's relationship with the US Continental Army?
Continental Marines what will be cool cause i just went to the marine corp museum and they had a tun tavern so can you make something about the continental marines?@@JYFMuseums
I own several reproduction black powder firearms, including a firing flintlock. In general, enthusiasts and rifle-makers both recommend frequent cleaning of the barrel--often between every shot, or between every two to three shots. This is done, ostensibly, to avoid both fouling and the risks of jams, misfires, or other complications. Since I imagine that colonial-era line infantry would rarely have sufficient opportunity to perform even light cleaning in the course of sustained engagements, I'd have to wonder what effect-, if any, the unsafe or excess accumulation of powder residue inside soldiers' barrels could have on the efficacy of in-battle rifle performance and the potential loss or degradation of mass-produced--and presumably somewhat expensive--firearms. So I'd like to ask: was the field-cleaning of firearms at all prioritized in Revolutionary War-era engagements?
If anything, the modern recommendation to swab the bore of a black powder rifle frequently or between shots has more to do with a modern desire for high performance and a modern expectation of accuracy. When black powder burns, the result of the combustion is the gas, solid and moisture. That moisture is going to keep the solid fouling very soft and pliable, and ramming a greased patched round ball down the bore will effectively swab the rifle bore. In the smoothbore musket the windage of the ball in the bore reduces any ill effects of fouling. There are no jams and misfires with a flintlock has more to do with the condition and quality of the flint and its ability to properly generate a spark. Field cleaning a firearm was not a high priority, and most units were not engaged long enough and did not expend enough ammunition that it would be a thought.
@@JYFMuseumsWas the Fire by File used very much during the Revolution, or was that a later development? I know it was used in the Civil War, as a means of increasing the amount of fire going downrange.
@@johnmullholand2044 Fire by files (running fire, feu de joie) is largely a parade ground usage for celebratory firings. Though it could be used on the battlefield, it is (much like firing by rank) an inferior way of delivering maximum fire power. Firing by company gave to best fire control and volume of fire.
If you mean the "scar" at the corner of TJ's mouth, that is actually a smudge of gunpowder one gets from tearing open the paper cartridge to load their musket.
Never quite understood why volley fire was so valued. It seems to unnecessarily limit rate of fire, whilst increasing the risk redundant shots, if two or more soldiers are aiming at the same target when firing. I guess it's easier to give commands when fire isn't going off non-stop, and it probably has a robotic effect on the soldier, prompting them to think less and therefore be less likely to rout.
As modern examiners of history, we probably place a greater emphasis on rate of fire than would be the case historically. It is sometime difficult for us to accept that this aspect of warfare might be a little slower than we think it should be - it is our modern bias We do not believe that the volley limits the rate of fire capable of being delivered by infantry companies or battalions, but rather maximizes the effectiveness of musketry when delivered as a whole against an opposing enemy battleline. The volley was extremely important because of its capability to deliver a sudden shock to the enemy. Also, it would not be viewed as a redundant risk, that two or more soldiers took aim at the same target. If anything, it increased the likelihood of striking a target.
@@JYFMuseums Sure, but you still get a better additive chance to hit more enemies if you spread out your targeting evenly. Suppose we have 2 men firing at 2 enemies, but both targeting only a single one of them, and that we have another duo of men targeting another duo of enemies, but aiming at both respectively. Let's say we have a 50% accuracy, and we make a 2x2 probability table for each of the two scenarios. In table A we hit 1 of the two enemies 3 out of 4 times, one of the scenarios being double miss, and one being a double hit, but we never hit both. In table B, we have a 1 in 4 chance to miss both, a 2 in 4 chance to hit either one of them, and a 1 in 4 chance to hit both. Whilst it might be conceivable someone could try to keep fighting even when shot, we can probably assume that the first hit does the most work to separate the fighters from the goners, so putting fewer shots in more guys is generally gonna be more effective. I get that's not necessarily the most groundbreaking difference ever, and it becomes less relevant if we assume the accuracy is lower, but I just wanna convey why the idea of volleys isn't very intuitive to me, especially given its effect on rate of fire. In principle, firing at will would allow more fluidly adapting to a rapid threat, such as continuously figuring out which charging enemy rider is most likely to reach your line and needs to be prioritized before they get here. I suppose I have to assume volleys were favored because it de-individualizes the soldiers, makes it easier to yell commands, or abruptly get them to switch to a different action, like charging. I could also imagine that being fired at in volley is scarier, because after each volley you receive, you get that chance to think "I should run away before that next volley hits."
The key thing is that the volley can effectively deliver a sudden shock to the enemy causing a wavering in their ranks and the necessary course of action is to immediately follow up the volley with an aggressive advance with the point of the bayonet. The volley goes hand-in-hand with timing. Do not deliver the volley too early so the result is ineffectual. Nor wait too long so that the enemy has been able to close the distance and deliver their own volley and assault with bayonet. But the rate of fire of a volley from a company formation is not significantly reduced or lessened over that of the individual soldiers firing at will. Nonetheless there is nothing that keeps an officer from commanding their men to fire at will if the conditions of battle make it necessary. Within this concept of the volley the officers are going to have little concern for which of the individual enemy soldiers their own men are aiming at. Their concern is that their body of soldiers as a whole are aiming at the enemy's body of soldiers opposing them across the battlefield. You may want to check out copies of "The Manual Exercise, as Ordered by His Majesty in 1764" or "Regulations for the Order & Discipline of the Troops of the United States Army." These volumes were used to instruct soldiers during the Revolutionary War Andrew gives us an introduction to the US manual in this video -- ua-cam.com/video/ETtTOgfI0j0/v-deo.html
Another reason is the sheer volume of smoke that firing these muskets in close quarters produces. Shooting all at once let's everybody take aim when it's clear, then reload while you can't see the enemy for a few seconds until the smoke clears out. If you fire-at-will you will have a greater level of smoke obscuring the view for everyone in the line. Multiply that with all the smoke being produced by all the muskets and artillery on the battlefield and visibility can be a challenge. At least that's my limited random internet person understanding
that second volley was awesome
I love this channel! I've always been interested in Early Modern history and the way you practically demonstrate these concepts is entertaining and educational. Keep it up! I hope you get more subscribers soon
Thank you! We are happy that you have found our channel, and please pass it along to your friends as well.
Well cousin, found your video watching a bunch from Jamestown. Hope you're still working at Yorktown. Looks like you're having fun.
Very informative. Thanks!
Nice presentation!
Thank you!
A great video
Thanks!
thank you for showing us this content ! I was wondering what was the procedure in case of missfire?
Best regards!
The only thing found that addresses misfires in any way is the following from Simes's The Military Medley, p. 31:
"Whatever man’s firelock shall miss fire twice, or be defective in any part of it, the man to whom it belongs, that neglects to report it to his Officer, will be sent to the drill for a month, and make good the duty he misses during that time."
The fife and drum tune at the end of the video has the same melody as “Ça ira!”, a song of from the time of the French Revolution. What is that tune's relationship with the US Continental Army?
Yorktown is cool you should make something about the continental marines
What would you like to see?
Continental Marines what will be cool cause i just went to the marine corp museum and they had a tun tavern so can you make something about the continental marines?@@JYFMuseums
Gd job
I own several reproduction black powder firearms, including a firing flintlock. In general, enthusiasts and rifle-makers both recommend frequent cleaning of the barrel--often between every shot, or between every two to three shots. This is done, ostensibly, to avoid both fouling and the risks of jams, misfires, or other complications. Since I imagine that colonial-era line infantry would rarely have sufficient opportunity to perform even light cleaning in the course of sustained engagements, I'd have to wonder what effect-, if any, the unsafe or excess accumulation of powder residue inside soldiers' barrels could have on the efficacy of in-battle rifle performance and the potential loss or degradation of mass-produced--and presumably somewhat expensive--firearms. So I'd like to ask: was the field-cleaning of firearms at all prioritized in Revolutionary War-era engagements?
If anything, the modern recommendation to swab the bore of a black powder rifle frequently or between shots has more to do with a modern desire for high performance and a modern expectation of accuracy.
When black powder burns, the result of the combustion is the gas, solid and moisture. That moisture is going to keep the solid fouling very soft and pliable, and ramming a greased patched round ball down the bore will effectively swab the rifle bore. In the smoothbore musket the windage of the ball in the bore reduces any ill effects of fouling. There are no jams and misfires with a flintlock has more to do with the condition and quality of the flint and its ability to properly generate a spark. Field cleaning a firearm was not a high priority, and most units were not engaged long enough and did not expend enough ammunition that it would be a thought.
@@JYFMuseumsWas the Fire by File used very much during the Revolution, or was that a later development? I know it was used in the Civil War, as a means of increasing the amount of fire going downrange.
@@johnmullholand2044 Fire by files (running fire, feu de joie) is largely a parade ground usage for celebratory firings. Though it could be used on the battlefield, it is (much like firing by rank) an inferior way of delivering maximum fire power. Firing by company gave to best fire control and volume of fire.
The British were famous for being good at this, sometimes being able to fire 4 rounds a minute.
The British where also the only Army in continental Europe to train with live ammunition for a long time asswell.
I wanna know how he got that scar
If you mean the "scar" at the corner of TJ's mouth, that is actually a smudge of gunpowder one gets from tearing open the paper cartridge to load their musket.
@@JYFMuseums he didn't have some abusive father or a sad wife that he tried to cheer up or something?
Never quite understood why volley fire was so valued. It seems to unnecessarily limit rate of fire, whilst increasing the risk redundant shots, if two or more soldiers are aiming at the same target when firing. I guess it's easier to give commands when fire isn't going off non-stop, and it probably has a robotic effect on the soldier, prompting them to think less and therefore be less likely to rout.
As modern examiners of history, we probably place a greater emphasis on rate of fire than would be the case historically. It is sometime difficult for us to accept that this aspect of warfare might be a little slower than we think it should be - it is our modern bias
We do not believe that the volley limits the rate of fire capable of being delivered by infantry companies or battalions, but rather maximizes the effectiveness of musketry when delivered as a whole against an opposing enemy battleline. The volley was extremely important because of its capability to deliver a sudden shock to the enemy. Also, it would not be viewed as a redundant risk, that two or more soldiers took aim at the same target. If anything, it increased the likelihood of striking a target.
@@JYFMuseums Sure, but you still get a better additive chance to hit more enemies if you spread out your targeting evenly.
Suppose we have 2 men firing at 2 enemies, but both targeting only a single one of them, and that we have another duo of men targeting another duo of enemies, but aiming at both respectively. Let's say we have a 50% accuracy, and we make a 2x2 probability table for each of the two scenarios.
In table A we hit 1 of the two enemies 3 out of 4 times, one of the scenarios being double miss, and one being a double hit, but we never hit both. In table B, we have a 1 in 4 chance to miss both, a 2 in 4 chance to hit either one of them, and a 1 in 4 chance to hit both.
Whilst it might be conceivable someone could try to keep fighting even when shot, we can probably assume that the first hit does the most work to separate the fighters from the goners, so putting fewer shots in more guys is generally gonna be more effective.
I get that's not necessarily the most groundbreaking difference ever, and it becomes less relevant if we assume the accuracy is lower, but I just wanna convey why the idea of volleys isn't very intuitive to me, especially given its effect on rate of fire. In principle, firing at will would allow more fluidly adapting to a rapid threat, such as continuously figuring out which charging enemy rider is most likely to reach your line and needs to be prioritized before they get here.
I suppose I have to assume volleys were favored because it de-individualizes the soldiers, makes it easier to yell commands, or abruptly get them to switch to a different action, like charging.
I could also imagine that being fired at in volley is scarier, because after each volley you receive, you get that chance to think "I should run away before that next volley hits."
The key thing is that the volley can effectively deliver a sudden shock to the enemy causing a wavering in their ranks and the necessary course of action is to immediately follow up the volley with an aggressive advance with the point of the bayonet. The volley goes hand-in-hand with timing. Do not deliver the volley too early so the result is ineffectual. Nor wait too long so that the enemy has been able to close the distance and deliver their own volley and assault with bayonet.
But the rate of fire of a volley from a company formation is not significantly reduced or lessened over that of the individual soldiers firing at will. Nonetheless there is nothing that keeps an officer from commanding their men to fire at will if the conditions of battle make it necessary.
Within this concept of the volley the officers are going to have little concern for which of the individual enemy soldiers their own men are aiming at. Their concern is that their body of soldiers as a whole are aiming at the enemy's body of soldiers opposing them across the battlefield.
You may want to check out copies of "The Manual Exercise, as Ordered by His Majesty in 1764" or "Regulations for the Order & Discipline of the Troops of the United States Army." These volumes were used to instruct soldiers during the Revolutionary War
Andrew gives us an introduction to the US manual in this video -- ua-cam.com/video/ETtTOgfI0j0/v-deo.html
Another reason is the sheer volume of smoke that firing these muskets in close quarters produces. Shooting all at once let's everybody take aim when it's clear, then reload while you can't see the enemy for a few seconds until the smoke clears out. If you fire-at-will you will have a greater level of smoke obscuring the view for everyone in the line. Multiply that with all the smoke being produced by all the muskets and artillery on the battlefield and visibility can be a challenge. At least that's my limited random internet person understanding
@@Zippsterman That's kind of smart.